The two very different sides of feminism

[telephone89]

A spinoff thread!

As discussed previously, I find there are two different sides of feminism. I've discussed it pretty in depth with friends, and still find myself conflicted.

1) The new age - the Kim Kardashian style. Women taking control of their own bodies. Being comfortable posing nude. Not being afraid to talk about sex, or have it. Knowing that others lust after you, but being in control of it. Considering yourself equal to men in these ways - coveting/having/discussing sex. Anti slut-shaming.

2) The old school. Wanting to be valued for more than your body. Fighting for your right to vote, and be equal to men. Wanting men to hear what you say, rather than look at your breasts.

I find one is more focused on social issues, and one is more on economical issues. Women are still not making equal pay as men, but men are still telling women how to act. Is one more important than the other? Where do you fall?

 

[monarch64]

I can't have both? I don't see why not. I'm no Kim K. but I know how to highlight my best features when the situation is appropriate so men and women don't think I'm a slob. I wear LBD's out to social events, where guests are often also colleagues or people I may be working with at any given time. I also assert myself and get involved in discussions in which both women and men are present and I offer intelligent contributions. I can be smart, funny, charming, beautiful, sexy, sharp, hard-working, vocal about women's rights and the plights of the oppressed, and a feminist. And a humanist. I absolutely CAN have it all. I don't disagree with either method or anything in between. Whatever works for any woman works for me, as long as she is not denying that other women can wear what they like. As long as she isn't denying another woman the right to call herself a feminist or talk about feminism because she's wearing a short skirt or posing nude. As long as she's not playing right into the patriarchal b.s. that's gone on here for years and needs to stop. As long as she's not blaming female victims of rape for dressing like a slut and asking for it because SITUATIONAL AWARENESS, Y'ALL.

 

[Matata]

For me, feminism is both sides melded together. Shouldn't be either/or; the goal is the same -- equality for women and a place at the table where they are valued for their contributions. There is a fine line that we have not clearly established between women owning their sexuality and peddling it for fame and monetary gain because I believe those actions are what contributes to women being objectified as sexual objects -- the sum of their parts are not as valued as the current trend of big boobs and huge derrieres. And as I mentioned in the other thread, none of that will matter if, in a few generations, we've managed to raise a crop of men who were taught to view women as a total package of sexuality and intellect as well as raised a crop of women who won't settle for less.

 

[telephone89]

I don't know if you CAN'T have both, perhaps it is just the strongholds on each end that disagree with each other fundamentally lol. Ie the old school saying that we should cover up and be respected for our brains - disagreeing with people who walk around topless to fight for the equal right of toplessness because it's obscene. There are people who deny they are feminists (even in the previous thread), and I've seen it in real life.

Another interesting topic - stay at home moms/wives - some people think as feminists, we shouldn't be SAHM/Ws, because of how hard people had to push to even GET jobs outside the home. Others think that as feminists it is our choice what to do, and that's an amazing choice to even be able to have.

 

[telephone89]

For me, feminism is both sides melded together. Shouldn't be either/or; the goal is the same -- equality for women and a place at the table where they are valued for their contributions. There is a fine line that we have not clearly established between women owning their sexuality and peddling it for fame and monetary gain because I believe those actions are what contributes to women being objectified as sexual objects -- the sum of their parts are not as valued as the current trend of big boobs and huge derrieres. And as I mentioned in the other thread, none of that will matter if, in a few generations, we've managed to raise a crop of men who were taught to view women as a total package of sexuality and intellect as well as raised a crop of women who won't settle for less.

But if it's a womans choice to make money that way, and she can make literally millions of dollars, who are we to say 'nah, not appropriate'? On the other hand, do I want my nieces growing up and wanting to make money like Kim? No, not so much, I'd much rather they strive to be a scientist or writer or whatever.

 

[Matata]

[
But if it's a womans choice to make money that way, and she can make literally millions of dollars, who are we to say 'nah, not appropriate'? On the other hand, do I want my nieces growing up and wanting to make money like Kim? No, not so much, I'd much rather they strive to be a scientist or writer or whatever.

Yanno, I don't really know. I am conflicted. It peeves me that women claim they are more than sexual objects yet accept objectification as it relates to our culture today. On one hand I think "good for you, do what you want and damn the torpedoes" and on the other I feel that women are prostituting themselves in a male dominated world. As I said above, in future I think things will change because there are women, such as Kim K and Amber Rose, who are at the forefront of the movement to demolish double standards.

I believe we have to fight the good fight in our own way and in our own time. I have never tolerated a man objectifying me. When I was young, I worked in a male-dominated profession where one of the big wigs would talk to my breasts -- always -- never once looked me in the eye. One day I'd had enough and as he talked to my breasts I stared at his crotch and squinted my eyes. It took him a few minutes to figure out what was going on and the look on his face was priceless. Thereafter, he only made eye contact during our meetings.

And those double standards gall me. When I was a assoc vp of hr, the newly hired vp to whom I reported would sit at his computer all day staring at **** and at pictures of his daughter while he fondled himself. Dumb cluck wasn't smart enough to turn his computer screen away from his office door. Several female staff members came to me and I witnessed it myself. Took the issue up with president who was a woman, his computer was seized, he was asked to explain himself and promptly said his son must have gotten access to his password and the **** was his son's. As to the fondling, the president didn't even bring it up. Then I was accused of loading the **** on his computer allegedly because I wasn't hired for the vp spot. He cried mea culpa and the president said he would be allowed to keep his job. I stated it was putting the fox back in the chicken coop (all of the staff were female) and not only would morale plummet but I would go straight to the attorney general's office and the hr staff would become quite wealthy. So he was given the option of resigning for personal reasons rather than being fired for violating the rules that he was responsible for holding an entire organization accountable for. The president didn't think his entire career and reputation should be ruined for a "minor" issue.

 

[redwood66]

For me, feminism is both sides melded together. Shouldn't be either/or; the goal is the same -- equality for women and a place at the table where they are valued for their contributions. There is a fine line that we have not clearly established between women owning their sexuality and peddling it for fame and monetary gain because I believe those actions are what contributes to women being objectified as sexual objects -- the sum of their parts are not as valued as the current trend of big boobs and huge derrieres. And as I mentioned in the other thread, none of that will matter if, in a few generations, we've managed to raise a crop of men who were taught to view women as a total package of sexuality and intellect as well as raised a crop of women who won't settle for less.

But if it's a womans choice to make money that way, and she can make literally millions of dollars, who are we to say 'nah, not appropriate'? On the other hand, do I want my nieces growing up and wanting to make money like Kim? No, not so much, I'd much rather they strive to be a scientist or writer or whatever.

I am asking this gently because I am not trying to be rude. But why is it that you would not want your nieces to make money in this way if there is nothing wrong for KK to do it? If it is ok to make money this way then it should be ok for them to do it right?

 

[redwood66]

[

I believe we have to fight the good fight in our own way and in our own time. I have never tolerated a man objectifying me. When I was young, I worked in a male-dominated profession where one of the big wigs would talk to my breasts -- always -- never once looked me in the eye. One day I'd had enough and as he talked to my breasts I stared at his crotch and squinted my eyes. It took him a few minutes to figure out what was going on and the look on his face was priceless. Thereafter, he only made eye contact during our meetings.

OMG that is the best way to handle that! Good for you on all your tales you posted!

 

[monarch64]

Matata, I understand and agree with a lot of what you're saying re Kim K. and selling the idea that if you buy a product she's shilling, you too could have a sexy woman like her. I also struggle with whether this is basically prostituting oneself or simply using appearance to your advantage. I mean, if you sing and get paid for it, you are selling part of yourself. I understand there is a difference, but I'm trying to make the point that if you make that choice and YOU are in control of how you're being represented, then I'm fine with it. And does it mean sex workers can't be happy or feminists? Do these things contribute to rape culture or help bring awareness? I'd have to think long and hard about all of it. I probably wrote a paper about most of this 15 years ago in Women's Studies class. Bit rusty on my feminism philosophy discussion!

 

[redwood66]

I completely understand the world you want and the freedom you imagine it would bring. But I am practical and come by that from the life that I have lived. I would love for people to be valued for who they are and not their appearance. We are not there yet and that does not mean that I have given up on that ever happening but common sense must be part of the equation for life in the here and now. You must stand up and protect yourself as Matata did.

 

[Matata]

Matata, I understand and agree with a lot of what you're saying re Kim K. and selling the idea that if you buy a product she's shilling, you too could have a sexy woman like her. I also struggle with whether this is basically prostituting oneself or simply using appearance to your advantage. I mean, if you sing and get paid for it, you are selling part of yourself. I understand there is a difference, but I'm trying to make the point that if you make that choice and YOU are in control of how you're being represented, then I'm fine with it. And does it mean sex workers can't be happy or feminists? Do these things contribute to rape culture or help bring awareness? I'd have to think long and hard about all of it. I probably wrote a paper about most of this 15 years ago in Women's Studies class. Bit rusty on my feminism philosophy discussion!

Let's explore this some more. Kim K is a bit of an anomaly -- her mother is her agent. Kim is more her own product than the stuff she shills. There are many women who have made a choice to represent themselves a certain way but they do not have control over that representation which is handled by men the majority of the time. There are more women in the modeling, movie, and music industries to name a few, who are represented by men and those industries are controlled by more men than women. There are more male designers of women's clothing, more male corporate heads etc. Kim K has more choice about her chosen career than many other women do because she is fortunate enough to control her empire. The gray area/slippery slope is whether she is using her appearance to advantage or whether she is selling herself as an object of lust. Maybe there's no difference. When trying to come to grips with the issue, I can't just view her as a lone entity -- the other side of the equation to the product she sells is the audience who buys it -- men who appreciate breasts and butt (I think we can surmise many men aren't making her face the first object of their attention) and women who think they have to look like her to get a man/be deemed attractive because they see so many men drooling over the body. I suppose I'm at odds with the fact that what these women do is usually for men and usually controlled by men in a manner I feel is exploitative.

I think these things bring attention to rape culture and contribute to it. Brock Turner, the many college football players who have recently received small or no sentences for raping unconscious women (objects), kidnapping of young girls (objects) for the sex trade and the trumpism that powerful men can do what they want to women because women (objects) simply don't count.

 

[monarch64]

Matata, I understand and agree with a lot of what you're saying re Kim K. and selling the idea that if you buy a product she's shilling, you too could have a sexy woman like her. I also struggle with whether this is basically prostituting oneself or simply using appearance to your advantage. I mean, if you sing and get paid for it, you are selling part of yourself. I understand there is a difference, but I'm trying to make the point that if you make that choice and YOU are in control of how you're being represented, then I'm fine with it. And does it mean sex workers can't be happy or feminists? Do these things contribute to rape culture or help bring awareness? I'd have to think long and hard about all of it. I probably wrote a paper about most of this 15 years ago in Women's Studies class. Bit rusty on my feminism philosophy discussion!

Let's explore this some more. Kim K is a bit of an anomaly -- her mother is her agent. Kim is more her own product than the stuff she shills. There are many women who have made a choice to represent themselves a certain way but they do not have control over that representation which is handled by men the majority of the time. There are more women in the modeling, movie, and music industries to name a few, who are represented by men and those industries are controlled by more men than women. There are more male designers of women's clothing, more male corporate heads etc. Kim K has more choice about her chosen career than many other women do because she is fortunate enough to control her empire. The gray area/slippery slope is whether she is using her appearance to advantage or whether she is selling herself as an object of lust. Maybe there's no difference. When trying to come to grips with the issue, I can't just view her as a lone entity -- the other side of the equation to the product she sells is the audience who buys it -- men who appreciate breasts and butt (I think we can surmise many men aren't making her face the first object of their attention) and women who think they have to look like her to get a man/be deemed attractive because they see so many men drooling over the body. I suppose I'm at odds with the fact that what these women do is usually for men and usually controlled by men in a manner I feel is exploitative.

I think these things bring attention to rape culture and contribute to it. Brock Turner, the many college football players who have recently received small or no sentences for raping unconscious women (objects), kidnapping of young girls (objects) for the sex trade and the trumpism that powerful men can do what they want to women because women (objects) simply don't count.

Fair. All excellent points.

 

[telephone89]

For me, feminism is both sides melded together. Shouldn't be either/or; the goal is the same -- equality for women and a place at the table where they are valued for their contributions. There is a fine line that we have not clearly established between women owning their sexuality and peddling it for fame and monetary gain because I believe those actions are what contributes to women being objectified as sexual objects -- the sum of their parts are not as valued as the current trend of big boobs and huge derrieres. And as I mentioned in the other thread, none of that will matter if, in a few generations, we've managed to raise a crop of men who were taught to view women as a total package of sexuality and intellect as well as raised a crop of women who won't settle for less.

But if it's a womans choice to make money that way, and she can make literally millions of dollars, who are we to say 'nah, not appropriate'? On the other hand, do I want my nieces growing up and wanting to make money like Kim? No, not so much, I'd much rather they strive to be a scientist or writer or whatever.

I am asking this gently because I am not trying to be rude. But why is it that you would not want your nieces to make money in this way if there is nothing wrong for KK to do it? If it is ok to make money this way then it should be ok for them to do it right?

Interesting question! I think it stems from my views on value and money. I don't think life should be solely about making money, I think people should choose a career that interests them, maybe something that can better the world. I encourage my nieces to focus on things besides money - I don't give gifts and money for Christmas, I buy them experiences and spend time with them. I find making money off of looks/body just to be superficial (modelling, ****, sports, whatever Kim actually does). It's not my place to judge other women if that's what they want to do, but I don't think it's a great way to spend our time on earth. I want our teachers paid more, our football players less.

As a side note, I think prostituton should be legal. I think prostituton is ok, but I wouldn't want my husband partaking! So things can still be ok, but not for me.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Count me in on wanting my daughters to make more meaningful contributions to the world than KK. However, if it makes her happy, I do not care what she does. The one thing I am very passionate about is that the choice to stay home full time and care for children and family should be valued as much as any other occupation. I really get irritated when women put down women who make that choice.